Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
The meeting of nearly 200 governments in December 2014 for a major UN climate was change summit, Known as Lima Meet; supposed to produce the first draft of a global deal to cut emissions. Yet significant progress is needed in key areas including climate financing and how to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. ‘The meeting in Lima in December, 2014 is a staging point towards a crunch summit in Paris in 2015 when it is hoped world leaders will agree, for the first time, a global deal on cutting emissions that includes both rich and poor countries.’ Policy advocacy for new pledges and practices has been well conceived with a great meaning and significance. “Significant progress” would also need to be made in Lim on the Green Climate.
The ministers of participating countries relish utter optimism about redemption of pledges while thinking that its success would depend on the political will “The UN secretary general’s idea is precisely that the presidents bring the political will to give the COP the momentum it needs to be sufficiently successful and to count on the political support to make a decision
One attending minister said “the Lima summit would leave a legacy in his fast-developing and industrializing country by fixing its sights on “green growth with clean technologies and low emissions. These options are fundamental for a nation such as ours which wants to continue growing. That’s our climate commitment.” ‘Peru has a lot to lose from climate change. People in the Amazon region, the Andes mountains and on its arid coast are already feeling the impact, and the country is one of the most biodiverse on Earth.’
The pledge comes on the heels of other significant climate actions such as the United States-China joint announcement to curb emissions as well as positive commitments reaffirmed by other leaders in recent meetings including at the G20 and the September UN Climate Summit. The Secretary-General also underscored the importance of climate finance for securing a meaningful, universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015 and for catalyzing action on the ground.
The Green Climate Fund seeks to make a significant and ambitious contribution to the global efforts towards attaining the goals set by the international community to combat climate change. The Fund will contribute to the achievement of the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change .And in the context of sustainable development, it will promote a shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development
Worst victims in Bangladesh are expected to get formal support from major players in the climate negotiations. Bangladesh, which tops a Global Climate Risk Index published during the Copenhagen talks, strongly backs an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, as the only existing binding instrument on emission cuts, rather than creation of an entirely new climate deal. Bangladesh is also urging rich nations to contribute at least US$100 billion for a global fund to help poor nations adapt to climate change. Britain, meanwhile, is the first country to contribute 75 million pounds for creation of Bangladesh’s own multi-donor trust fund for climate change adaptation.
The small island states have threatened to boycott the conference. These states including African union have been organized into three alliances each expressing common views about limiting temperature to not more than one degree Celsius. They demanded compensation package for the victims. Human rights activists in various countries demanded climate justice and fair deal, heavy compensation package even immigration of the climate displaced people from poor and vulnerable countries.
The situation in Bangladesh reveals that the problem of climate displacement is a present. one signaling future uncertainties. The government of Bangladesh and that of other poor countries have been urged upon to take heed of the climate displacement nightmare unfolding to add to humanitarian crisis.
All national governments have been directed to make best use of the funds that may be placed at their disposals. Local bureaucracies as implementing agencies must be sensitized to make best use of the fund keeping an arm’s length from fuzzy governance.
There were disconcerting views on various questions. Even dialogue continued till consensus was reached.Expert like Sandy Dechert thus commented : ‘The UN’s Lima COP20 conference stands up very well in its final days against those who doubt or scorn international efforts to reduce climate impacts.
It’s not just a lot of hot air. The congruence of international climate experts and decisionmakers is allowing organizations public and private, worldwide, to focus on exploring new solutions and filling critical information gaps.It looks to this observer as if most everyone here in Lima-and that’s representatives of close to 100% of the nations of the world-realizes that in sharing climate action, we can also share prosperity, at no one’s expense and to everyone’s benefit. Other commenters have described the movement as a new political will. Developing countries are beginning to achieve a higher level of trust in the “rich” nations of the world.
The developed countries, which cause the most global pollution, have mostly come through with emissions and financing pledges that seem more just, fair, equitable, and attainable than the vaguer commitments of the past. Moneyed interests and finance ministers of developed and developing countries have begun to see opportunity and potentially smart long-term investments in climate mitigation and adaptation. Clearly specifying goals, stimulating green entrepreneurship, accelerating investment shifts, and building better financial mechanisms to move forward with energy transformation all seem desirable catalysts.
Then too, there’s divestment, which has been taking hold in the academic, NGO, and some corporate sectors and is favored by some nationals attending here. Countries will develop Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions before the Paris talks to address some of these factors.’ There’s also been talk about newer and more subtle loss and damage mechanisms, which may include both economic and noneconomic losses and might be achievable by technological interventions rather than cold cash. Island states and less developed countries clearly have the most to lose in the short run.
The movement is to plan for risks, build in resilience, set development on a sustainable track from the start, reduce vulnerability, incentivize fuller, faster responses, and provide financial support where it’s necessary. Nobody wants to see our precious and superb island getaways become a thing of the past.’ She goes on to say “There’s a lot more to discuss that we have no room for here: forestry/deforestation, ocean acidification, warming, technology transfer, novel uses of instruments like cell phones (not just for rich-nation messaging any more), the effect of climate change on traditional gender roles, the interplay between youth and climate futures…. Also, the goal of climate change efforts seems to be shifting from mitigation toward the larger view of adaptation. Nations like the United States, where denial of climate change has caused divisive political behavior, should recognize that being stuck in the mitigation-only perspective will hold back efforts to enable saner energy and a less threatening way of life.”
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque, Professor of Public administration, Chittagong University)
